This descripton of the editorial process is for the benefit of the editors and addressed to them. Authors should also look at the process to make sure they are providing what is asked for.

First, authors email an abstract to the editor-in-chief. This is to determine if the article is within the scope of psyart.

If it is, the editor-in-chief will ask the author to email the full text. If it is not, the abstract will be rejected as not within our scope.

On receiving the text, the editor-in-chief will email the article out to two members of the editorial board. If an editor cannot review the article, either for lack of time or expertise, the editor-in-chief will select another reader.

The two readers email their recommendations to the editor-in-chief.

If both say accept the article as is, it will be accepted.

If both refuse it, it will be refused.

If one refuses, the editor-in-chief will decide whether to refuse the article or to ask for a third reading.

If any of the readers require revision before acceptance, the suggestions for revision will be sent to the author for action.

On receiving the revised article, the editor-in-chief will re-email it to the reviewing editors.

As before, if two refuse, the article is refused. If two accept, the article is accepted. Its abstract and other information will be placed in the online publication of PSYART. If there is no agreement, the editor-in-chief will decide or email the article for further review.

Instructions for Editors

Editors will be asked only about articles in their area of expertise and no more than three a month (or fewer if you so ask). If you feel you are not expert in the area of the the article in question, tell me. If you feel you cannot review the article WITHIN TWO WEEKS, tell me. If you refuse to review, please, if possible, suggest someone who can and especially their email address--if at all possible.

Our review process is double-blind. Editors will be sent the submitted article with no indication of the author's identity. Likewise, the author will receive no indications of the readers' identity unless you give him some. If you wish your review to remain anonymous, remove all indications of your identity in the body of your message. If you wish to be known to the submitting author, include your name, e-address, snail address, etc., in the body of your review.

Below is the reviewers' form for articles submitted. Editors can see what criteria they will be asked to use. Authors can see what criteria they should meet. A copy of this form will be emailed to editors with the submitted article, or editors can use the online version of this review form.

*REVIEWER REPORT FORM - ASCII*
Use the "Reply-with-Text" feature of your mail system to fill
in this form and return it to: norman-holland@ufl.edu or
nnh@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu.
Date ms. sent: .........................
Date report is due: .........................
Ms. Number: .........................
Reviewer: .........................
Title of ms. .............................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
Please rate the ms. on the scales below. No part of the form as
you complete it will be seen by the author(s). You can be as
blunt as you like with your numbers.
1 = Inadequate 2 = Major Problems 3 = Minor problems
4 = Adequate 5 = Superior or N/A = Not applicable
Readability: .........................
Treatment of Relevant Literature: .........................
Appropriateness of Length .........................
Clarity of objectives: .........................
Conceptual Rigor: .........................
Methodological Rigor: .........................
Coherence of Organization: .........................
Defined Conclusion: .........................
=================================================================
Please rate the mss on the scales below.
1 = None 4 = Important
2 = Trivial 5 = Path-Breaking
3 = Modest or N/A = not applicable
Significance of Topic: .........................
Answer one of the following:
If little or no revision is needed,
Significance of Contribution: .........................
If a lot of revision is needed,
Potential Significance of Contribution .........................
Total (for purposes of comparison): .........................
Is the title of the paper appropriate to the content and useful
to the reader?
YES NO
If not, what would be a better title? .........................
.................................................................
.................................................................
Is the abstract an accurate and useful summary of the content of
the paper?
YES NO
If not, please set out the necessary revisions in your Comments
to Author.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
Check one only.
[ ] Accept unconditionally
[ ] Accept subject to minor revisions
[ ] Encourage revision in accordance with my comments
[ ] Reject in current form, but allow resubmission of a
substantially different version as outlined in my comments
[ ] Reject, despite some merit, because the likelihood of
successful revision is remote.
[ ] Reject unconditionally.
In addition to emailing this Reviewer Report Form, please email
*for the Editor only,* a brief summary assessment and
recommendations for the ms. Also, please email to the Editor a
Comment for the Author that will give polite, constructive
feedback. You can add these comments at the end
of this posting.
We recommend that both these comments include an overall or
gestalt evaluation that sets out both general strengths and
weaknesses as well as a set of more detailed comments outlining
specific concerns and suggestions. The Comment for the Author
should not include any semblance of a recommended disposition for
the ms.
Since PSYART uses double blind review, your identity will not be
disclosed to the author unless you specifically state that you
wish it to be.
PLEASE BEAR IN MIND that your review will be transmitted by
email, and that negative remarks on email are likely to be
perceived as more severe or hostile than they seem to the writer.
If you have any doubts about a certain phrasing, re-phrase it.
The Editor reserves the right to alter editors' phrasings that he
deems needlessly likely to provoke or hurt the recipient.
Thank you for your help and advice. Yours very truly,
Norman N. Holland
Editor-in-Chief
PSYART: A Hypertext Journal in the Psychology of the Arts
ADD YOUR COMMENT FOR THE EDITOR HERE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ADD YOUR COMMENT FOR THE AUTHOR HERE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The editor-in-chief will email the COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR to the
author with your identity removed, unless you indicate otherwise.
The editor-in-chief will keep those and your other comments on
file.